Replies

"I think that's because they have a very primitive and reductive view of what is essential in society," [Homi Bhabha, director of the Humanities Center at Harvard] said. "There are jobs, and even in business, the humanities play a major role."

And in business, there's nothing regarding humanities that I can't learn from personal experience - which is more accurate that what is taught in ethnic/gender/homo/transit studies.

And in business, there's nothing regarding humanities that I can't learn from personal experience . . .

Actually, I disagree, but only on the margin. There are things in the humanities - notably English - that everyone should learn and should know before beginning a career 'in business.' But there's a huge difference between learning English in order to perform a useful function in society - like one of the 'hard sciences' - and learning English as an end in itself.

I saw a memorable comment in a letter to the editor in USNI Proceedings one time. The writer was a crusty old retired Captain, USN, and his comment was, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a social scientist, but it *does* take a rocket scientist to be a rocket scientist."

The foundational concept from the article is about subsidy. If you want to major in something like gender studies that doesn't have any reasonable chance of leading to a job in your degree area, then fine - go to a private school. But no societal subsidies for study areas that are not likely to return commensurate value to society.

Unfortunately, the logic of that escapes everyone who thinks it is 'compassionate' to give away someone else's money.

For laughs. I couldn't believe this when I read it in an engineering book.

Leave it to a bunch of flakes to make professionalism complicated.

I wonder if people leaving humanities will simply result in more tripe like this. Much like we cheer when liberal states begin to fail only to watch them flee to red states which turn them purple.